HomeMy WebLinkAboutYOUNGS CREEK - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2004-09-07CONCEPTUAL REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS
City of Fort Collins
MEETING DATE: October 14, 1997
ITEM: Proposed mixed residential development located
immediately adjacent to the east of the Landmark
Apartments (corner of Prospect and Shields.)
APPLICANT: Jim Sell
Jim Sell Design
153 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
LAND USE DATA:
Request for a mixed residential development including condominiums and patio
homes. The intent is to gain access from Hobbit with probably no connection to
Prospect. The condominiums are proposed to be located next to the Landmark
Apartments and along Prospect Road, and the patio homes location to the
southeast portion of the property.
COMMENTS:
1. The Zoning Department offered the following comments:
a) The property is zoned MMN-Medium Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood. Both multi -family and patio homes are permitted uses
as a Type 1 Review.
b) Along Prospect Road, a 15' minimum distance to the street must be
maintained.
c) The size of the units (i.e., the number of bedrooms) will determine the
number of parking spaces.
d) Any signage will be subject to the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District.
2. The Water/Wastewater Utility offered the following comments:
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281NCo11e1,e A,e FO. Bos CFO Fort Collin,. CC7 rf0� L=.z1U iy7i�)„1-r�-=r
I'LANNING DI!PAR'I :NIENT
swell/consolidation test will need to be redone at 100 pfs as per our standard,
not at 500 pfs as it was tested.
14. The Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments:
a) The TIS is still based on 36 condos, not 18 as proposed. The TIS will
need to be revised so that it reflects the proposed number of dwelling
units.
b) A sidewalk is needed along the east die of Prospect Drive (between
the end of Hobbit Street and the north end of the guest parking area.)
c) Please provide bicycle and pedestrian connection between Prospect
Drive and Prospect Road (can the fire access road be dual-purpose?)
d) Please provide a connection to the Spring Creek Trail.
e) Please provide bicycle parking at the townhome units.
15. The Advance Planning Department offered the following comments:
a) The :street adjacent to the townhomes appears to be more like a
parking lot or an alley rather than a private drive/street. A suggestion
(that would comply with the requirements of the Land Use Code) would
be to flip the main entrance of the buildings to the west side facing a
connecting walkway. In this configuration, the private drive would truly
function as an alley.
b) Pedestrian connections must be made throughout the entire site.
16. The Current Planning Department(Environmental Planning) offered the
following comments:
a) The drainageway should be designed to "naturalistically" extend to the
one to the south.
17. The Current Planning Department offered the following comments:
Elevations
a) Please label all building materials and colors.
b) What is the scale of the structures?
c) As the proposed development is located adjacent to structure that is
designated as a local landmark (and an area that may be designated
as an historic district), it is very likely that the Landmark Preservation
Commission will review the proposal. This review will be advisory in
nature and will review the elevations to evaluate how the structures fit
into the context of the neighborhood.
Plat
a) Please fix the signature blocks as shown on the redlined plans.
b) This is not a preliminary plat. The reference to the utility plans must be
removed so that the plat can be recorded on its own, outside of a set
of utility plans.
c) Please label the proposed uses for the tracts.
d) Please add a vicinity map to the plat, complying with the requirements
defined in the submittal requirements for subdivision plats.
e) The Attorney's Certification must be modified according to the
language attached.
f) Why is the private drive shown as ROW on the plat? A public access
easement may be more appropriate.
g) The fire access should include bicycle and pedestrian access as well.
h) The plan labels the proposed development to the south as "Pulse
PUD." This should be changed so that it says Spring Creek Village
PUD-Preliminary. The zoning in not RL and should be fixed.
i) Please see the attached redlined plan for additional comments.
Site Plan
a) Please add a legal description to the site plan.
b) The signature blocks should reflect approval by the Director of
Planning.
c) Please show how the density was calculated per the requirements of
Section 3.8.18 of the Land Use Code.
d) In the Land Use Table, it states 16 handicapped parking and 1
handicapped space. This appears to be an error in labeling.
e) As the townhome units are all attached (and not located on individual
lots), they comply with the definition of multi -family units in the Land
Use Code. As they are categorized as such, the proposal must
provide bicycle parking (5% of the total number of parking spaces.)
f) What is the purpose of the little squares in front of each of the patio
homes?
g) Please show the location of the mail kiosks.
h) Is there a common trash collection area? If there is, please provide a
detail with the elevations.
i) There appears to be a point of possible pedestrian/automobile backing
conflicts where the Hobbit cul-de-sac becomes a private drive. Please
demonstrate how this will function without incident.
j) The applicable setbacks defined in the Land Use Code are as follows:
rear-15' and side-5'. As the City's owns the Canal Importation
Channel, these setbacks must be maintained.
k) In the Land Use Table, what does the "open space" calculations
include? Since the Channel is not owned by the applicant, this cannot
be included in the open space calculations.
1) Please label the number of stories for the condominium units.
m) Please show the lot areas and dimensions on the site plan.
n) Please label the solar -oriented lots on the site plan.
o) The proposed patio homes and townhomes do not comply with the
garage standards defined in Section 3.5.2(E) of the Land Use Code.
Please contact Clark Mapes with the Advance Planning Department
regarding a possible solution to create the private street as an alley
and orient the fronts of the townhomes towards the west.
p) Please refer to the Spring Creek Village for locations of trail
connections for that proposal. The proposed Prospect Creek must
connect into the Spring Creek Trail, and it may be possible to link to
the trail via the proposed connections associated with Spring Creek
Village.
q) The crosswalks should be enhanced so as to provide safety and
connectivity for pedestrians.
r) What is the width of the sidewalk on the north side of Hobbit?
s) Please see the attached redlined plan for additional comments.
Landscape Plan
a) Are there any existing trees on the site? These need to be shown, and
if any trees are proposed to be removed, tree mitigation will be
required according to the requirements of the Land Use Code.
b) The townhomes do not comply with the "full tree stocking"
requirements of Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c). This includes the placement
on canopy trees (30'-40' spacing) along the "front" /Prospect Drive of
the units and along the "rear" of the units along the property line.
c) Foundation plantings must be provided along the north side of Unit 18
and the south side of Unit 1 (at least 5' wide for 50% of the wall.)
d) Please provide additional pines along the southeast corner to provide
additional screening.
e) Please provide an additional street tree along the north side of Hobbit.
f) Is there any proposed ground mounted equipment? If so, please show
the locations on the site and landscape plans and they must be
screened according to the requirements of the Land Use Code.
g) Please review the attached redlined plan for additional comments.
18. Comments from Forestry are attached.
19. Comments from Mapping/Drafting are attached.
There are some fundamental issues associated with various City departments
and outside agencies that must be addressed. As per our earlier conversation, I
am attempting to schedule a meeting with City staff so that this issues may be
addressed. As soon as I have that time/date scheduled, I will notify you.
This completes the review comments at this time. Additional comments may be
forthcoming as the various departments and reviewing agencies continue to
review this request.
Please provide a written response to each of the above stated comments with
the submittal of plan revisions. Please contact me at 221-6750 if you have any
questions or concerns that are related to the comments. If you would like to
schedule a meeting, please call me as soon as possible.
Revisions may be submitted at any time. With the submittal of revisions, please
include the enclosed redlined plans. The number of revisions required is
attached.
Best regards,
J�%
Leanne A. Harter, AICP
City Planner
xc: Stormwa.ter Utility
Mike Dean
File/Project Planner
F7
Mr. David Stringer
City of Fort Collins Development Review
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Re: Prospect Creek Subdivision Response Letter
Project No. 0903-001
Dear David,
September 21, 1999
The following is a response letter to the City of Fort Collins preliminary review
comments for the Prospect Creek Subdivision Project.
Stormwater
l . All tracts designated on the Final Plat are drainage, utility and access easements.
2. Finish floor and spot elevations have been added.
3. We have incorporated the 100-year floodplain given to us by the City.
4. Plans include half of Prospect Road.
5. Drainage subbasins have been identified, see drainage plan.
6. Swales have been added around buildings, see grading plan and drainage plan.
7. All utilities (have been revised for 10 feet of separation, see utility sheet.
8. Table has been added.
9. Contours have been revised.
10. The existing curb cut flows directly into the City of Fort Collins Canal Importation
Channel and doesn't flow onto our site.
11. N/A
12. Easements have been added.
13. Water quality systems have been added.
14. N/A
15. Hobbit Street has been re -designed with Stormwater flow going to the same discharge
point and swale.
16. N/A
17. New flows have been provided by Ms. Susan Hayes.
18. N/A
19. Erosion calculations have been added.
TST, INC.
Consulting Engineers
748 WFmlers W'a, - Luildinq
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970) 226-0557
Metro (303) 595-9103
Fax (970)226-0204
1?mail info (u tstinc.com
,wW.Utino.mm
102 Im-erness 'terrace Fast
suit. 105
Englewood, CO 80112
(303) 792-0557
Fax (303) 792-9489
TST, INC.
Engineering
1. Title has been revised.
2. Vicinity map has been revised.
3. Benchmarks have been provided.
4. Tracts have been dedicated (no ROW)
5. Attorney's Certificate has been revised.
6. See variance request for access to Prospect Road.
7. N/A
8. Soils report has been provided with street recommendations.
Water and Wastewater
1. N/A
2. Easement has been shown.
3. Due to access configuration only water curb stops have been shown in impervious
area.
4. 6" sewer main has been shown and added.
5. Note has been added.
6. Information has been added.
7. 10-foot separation has been shown.
8. Water main lowering has been described on utility plan.
9. N/A
10. See item 8
11. N/A
PFA
1. Cul-de-sac is eliminated.
We look forward to your review and comments. If you have any questions or concerns
please feel free to call.
Respectfully,
TST, INC CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Keith G. Sheaffer, P.E.
KGS/tdy
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: September 22, 1999 TO: Mapping
PROJECT: #24-98 Prospect Creek (Youngs Pasture) PDP -
LUC
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, October 13,1999
No Conunent
Problems or Concerns (see below orattached)
IJIvP P� Nn+M� ,S c
Y, f'f ci
5 L Y U—C�_ NVl I S .5 1 yr C, o�� �'4 c_ 1 �i L� 61 F ✓'�
i 117 ES.
l�r r U-e_, LO LA �Yo aTs ( d �ces 1
zcrc7'i tie Pi�i w i�4G� SPr,�� CYe�� U,1l�t�P.
77-1L,- ST" „ D2
((1C><cs ( 4 iSc�o /i/o- Pater o T«'j CU/30)✓iJ10- .
ZS . (fF-/c e lc THL5- 1412c-q 0% T)
Date: q Signature:
r 1, T�/ei� yTrq ��
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH �COP OF REVLS ON5
Plat _ site _ Drainage Repot _ Other
Utility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape ��
PROJECT
not
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: 10-1.9-99 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #24-98 Prospect Creek ( Youngs Pasture) LUC
PDP
PLANNER: Steve Olt
1. Need to identify ownership of property associated with street connection at Wallenburg, there
appears to be three properties involved at this location. Owners need to sign plat and utility
plans. Change street name from Boulder Court. Can the road cross the drainage easement
owned by Hill Pond 2nd?
2. What are the uses of the tracts as described?
3. Natural Resources requires a fifty (50') foot buffer area from channel. This impacts
proposed roadway and building layout.
4. Road needs to be moved outside of buffer area.
5. Private street is to be built as Public street as per 3.6.2 (K)
6. Street is to be 30 foot in width. 24 foot width streets are only allowed with public alley
standards. Driveway access does nut work as alley. No driveways are allowed access from
narrow street
7. Minimum sidewalk width 4 feet six inches (4'6")
8. Why have x-pan when storm sewer pipe is within 17 feet of pan? Remove x-pan and install
inlets.
9. Show detail of emergency access to Prospect Road with proposed devices to close road off for
public use. Align emergency drive to right angle to Prospect as per driveway criteria.
Page 2 - Prospect Creek
10. Does Prospect Street need to be cut to install water line? If so show proposed limits of
pavement repair. Show pavement repair area in Wallenberg Drive.
I L. Provide distance of parking spaces from flowline at northend parking area.
12. Install detached walk at northeast parking area.
13. Provide better/more design information of Hobbit Street
14. Need temporary turn around and off -site easement for the same at Hobbit.
15. Need to vacate existing portion of Hobbit Street and off -site R.O.W. for Hobbit
16. Provide details of street intersection transitions, i.e. Elevations, distances and etc.
17. Need off -site construction and utilities easement in Hobbit
18. Please address other comments on blue line plans
19. Return previous commented blue line plans with next submital
Date: `O - L - S Signature: `�✓ v `^ �kZ�
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: PLAT P�l
CSITE
UTILITY
LANDSCAPE
a) There is an existing 8" water main in Hobbit and in Prospect; a 6"
water main in Farm Tree Road; an 8" sewer main in Hobbit; a 6" sewer
main in Farm Tree Road; and a 6" sewer main along the east property
line.
b) The water main should be looped through the project.
c) An easement must be maintained for the sewer main along the east
property line.
d) It is strongly encouraged that the duplex units have separate
water/sewer services to each unit.
e) Plant Investment Fees and water rights will be due at the time of
building permit.
f) The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will
applly to the project.
Please contact Roger Buffington at 221-6854 if you have questions about
these comments.
2. The Stormwater Utility offered the following comments:
a) This site is located on inventory grid #61K and is in the Spring Creek
basin where the fees are $2,175/acre and is subject to the runoff
coefficient reduction.
b) The standard drainage and erosion control reports and plans are
required and they must be prepared by a professional engineer
registered in Colorado.
c) The Canal Importation Study will need to be checked for site release
rates. Detention may not be required since the site is close to Spring
Creek. However, smaller, onsite extended detention may be needed
to address water quality. Water quality will be required in the new
Stormwater Criteria Manual.
d) The crossing of the canal importation channel will have to meet the
original design capacity with reduction factors as in the present
manual.
Please contact Glen Schlueter at 221-6589 if you have questions about
these comments.
3. Light and Power offered the following comments:
a) At least a 13' setback behind the sidewalk must be provided for the
installation of services. Normally, telephone and cable are located at
the rear of the building, however, these can be located jointly with light
and power. If necessary, light and power can be located in an area
with asphalt, however, the costs of such installation is an additional
$4/foot.
CommL.. -ry Planning and Environmental S _ ✓ices
Current Planning
Citv of Fort Collins
October 21, 1999
Jim Sell Design
c/o Brad Saucerman
153 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO. 80524
Dear Brad,
Staff has reviewed your revisions for the Prospect Creek (Youngs Pasture),
Project Development Plan (PDP) that were submitted to the City on
September 21, 1999, and would like to offer the following comments:
1. This property is located on the south side of East Prospect Road between
South Shields Street and Sheeley Drive, is adjacent to the existing
Landmark Apartments, and is at the current east terminus of Hobbit
Street. It is in the MMN - Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood
Zoning District. Single family attached dwellings are permitted in this
District, subject to an administrative review (Type I) and public hearing
for a decision, unless any modifications of standards are required. The
need for any modification would make the request for development a
Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review.
As defined in Section 4.5(D)(1) Density of the Land Use Code (LUC),
the minimum net residential density shall be 7 dwelling units per
acre of residential land for a development plan containing 20 acres
or less and located in the °Infill Area" of Fort Collins.
This proposal is for 18 single family attached dwelling units and 4 single
family detached dwelling units on 3.06 net acres, equaling 7.18 dwelling
units per acre. The property is less than 20 acres in size and is in the
"Infill Area" of the City as defined in the LUC.
2,S1 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
2. Mike Spurgin of the Post Office asked that the applicant please select an
alternate street name, other than "Boulder Court". There is presently a
"Boulder Circle" in use in the 80524 Zip Code area.
3. Representatives of the Zoning Department offered the following
comments:
a. For the condos show building envelopes, dimensions, and
distances to property lines (or show building footprint typicals on
the`2 types for dimensions).
b. Please use consistent terminology. Either use Townhome or Patio
Horne, but not both.
C. Have building elevations for the condos been submitted? If not,
they must be provided.
d. It does not appear that a trash enclosure has been provided for the
6 Condos/Townhomes on the southwest side of the Canal
Importation Ditch.
e. Remove the topography lines from the final Site Plan that is to be
recorded.
f. If the "townhomes" are on their own lot, then they are single family
attached dwelling units, and the project notes table should reflect
this so that they are called what they really are. If they are not on
their own lots thane they are "duplexes". The same goes for the
"con.dos/townhomes". If those 6 units are on individual lots, they
are single family attached dwelling units. If not, it is a 6-plex
building and the terminology should be changed. Also, the lot lines
should be shown on the Site Plan. The terms "townhomes" and
"condos" are not recognized housing types in the LUC.
g. Remove the typical setbacks shown on the Site Plan for the 4
detached single family lots. Setbacks are prescribed in Section
3.5.2(1)) of the LUC and shouldn't be on the Site Plan.
Please contact Jenny, Gary, or Peter at 221-6760 if you have questions
about these comments.
4. Dennis Greenwalt of AT&T Cable Services (formerly TCI of Fort
Collins) stated that they need to know what Tracts A, B, C, and D are.
They would like to see them as utility easements so that cable service
can be provided.
5. A copy of the comments received from Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire
Authority is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Ron, at 221-
6570, if you have questions about his comments.
6. A copy of the comments received from Alan Rutz of the Light & Power
Department is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Alan, at
221-6700, if you have questions about his comments.
7. Ron Mills of the Right -Of -Way Planning Department stated that the
Boulder Court private drive access onto Wallenberg Drive would have a
major impact on the trail connection at that location. It is his opinion
that this would cause a safety concern. Please contact Ron, at 221-6274,
if you have questions about his concerns.
8. Lorie Digliani of Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (L.E.T.A.)
stated that. the proposed street name of Boulder Court is already in use
in the City of Fort Collins. The applicant must use another street name.
9. A copy of the comments received from Donald Dustin of the Stormwater
Utility is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments can be
found on the red -lined reports and plans that are being forwarded to the
applicant. Please contact Donald, at 221-6681, if you have questions
about his comments.
10. A copy of the comments received from Dave Stringer of the Engineering
Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments
can be found on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the
applicant. Please contact Dave, at 221-6750, if you have questions about
his comments.
11. Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations Department offered the following
comments:
a. The Transportation Impact Study (TIS) is acceptable.
b. The .access road needs to be 30' wide.
C. The applicant may need to work on the emergency access. It must
be 90 degrees (perpendicular) with West Prospect Road. Also, there
may be grade issues associated with the emergency access.
Please contact Eric, at 224-6062, if you have questions about these
comments.
12. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department offered the
following comments:
a. The bicycle/pedestrian access from this site north to West Prospect
Road needs to be a minimum of 8' wide (and connect to the
sidewalk along the south side of Prospect Road.
b. The applicant needs to design the bicycle/pedestrian connection
from Hobbit Street to Wallenberg Drive to be consistent with the
proposed plans for Spring Creek Village.
C. The bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Canal Importation Ditch
should be raised to be out of the water flow area by providing a
bridge similar to those used by Parks & Recreation for City trails
(at a minimum, the existing crossing needs hand railings).
d. Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit level of service needs to be done as
part of this TIS, traffic analysis for neighborhood impact.
Please contract Kathleen, at 224-6140, if you have questions about these
comments.
13. Janet Meisel -Burns of the Park Planning Department stated that Park
Planning will want to coordinate any trail or bridge changes that may
occur due this project's connection to Wallenberg Drive.
14. Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department stated that his
design comments pertaining to the southwest edges of this development
are based on the assumption that there is complete coordination with the
future Spring Creek Village development proposal, with THAT project
setting the basic arrangement of Hobbit Street. The project may have to
lose condos/townhomes units 5 & 6. They stick out into the logical
extension of Hobbit Street (in this case, into the spine that needs to work
in place of Hobbit as a street). Please see the marked up Landscape Plan
that is being forwarded to the applicant.
15. A copy of the comments received from Jeff Hill of the Water/Wastewater
Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are
included on a red -lined Landscape Plan that is being forwarded to the
applicant. Please contact Jeff, at 221-6674, if you have questions about
his comments.
16. Jim Hoff of the Mapping Department and Wally Muscott of the
Surveying Department offered the following comments:
a. The proposed street name "Boulder Court" is a duplicate in the
City.
b. Lots 1 thru 4 need square footages labeled on the subdivision plat.
C. There is curve data missing on Tract `G' where Tract `A' divides.
d. The (driveway from Lots 21 and 22 goes across the preliminary
Spring Creek Village.
e. New statements are needed.
f. A dedication for the private street from Wallenberg Drive is needed.
g. It would be helpful if the storm drainage parcel were labeled "Not
Part of This Subdivision".
h. Check the area of Lots 17 - 22.
i. There are two Tract W.
j. A red -lined copy of the subdivision plat is being forwarded to the
applicant.
Please contact Jim, at 221-6588, or Wally, at 221-6605, if you have
questions about these comments.
The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly staff
review meeting on October 13, 1999:
Natural Resources
17. A 50' setback from the top of slope on both sides of the Canal
Importation Ditch is required. Improvements, including the roadway, are
not permitted in this setback. The affected section of the LUC is
modifiable.
18. There is an 80% overall average buffer area requirement as set forth in
Section 3.4.1(E)(3) of the LUC that is not being met with this
development plan. This section identifies the BUFFER ZONE STANDARD
setback requirement from various natural habitats or features, in this
case being the Canal Importation Ditch. Several of the proposed dwelling
units, lots;, and street are not in compliance with this section of the LUC.
Please contact Kim Kreimeyer, at 221-6641, to schedule a meeting to
discuss this very significant matter.
Plannine
19. This development proposal does not meet the requirements set forth in
Section 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards of the LUC
regarding street connectivity into adjacent properties. Section 3.6.3 has
an Alternative Compliance section that must be used by the applicant to
request review and approval of an alternative plan that does not comply
with the LUC.
20. There could be problems with the layout of condos/townhomes units 5 &
6 because of the Hobbit Street and bicycle/pedestrian spine alignments
and design.
21. The layout of the 4 single family lots and the 6 condos/townhomes may
be significantly affected by the requirement for a 50' buffer and setback
from the Canal Importation Ditch.
22. The right-of-way for Hobbit Street cannot be subtracted out of the net
density number. Section 3.8.18(B)(1)(a) allows for "land to be dedicated
for arterial streets" only to be netted out. Therefore, the net acreage
based on the current Site Plan is 3.06 acres.
23. If this request remains an administrative (Type I) review then the City
signature block should be:
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
Approved by the Director of Planning of the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado, this day of
Director of Planning
24. There must be a cul-de-sac or other acceptable form of turnaround area
at the north end of the private street, adjacent to townhome unit 12, for
both public and emergency vehicle movement out of the site.
25. Is there to be a trash enclosure for condos/townhome units 5 — 6? If so,
it should be shown on the Site and Landscape Plans.
26. The building elevations as submitted are unacceptable. They show only
some of the single family homes and no information or elevations
pertaining to the townhomes and condos/townhomes.
Engineering (Dave Stringer)
27. How does this subdivision plat tie into West Prospect Road?
28. The plans for the private drive are inconsistent. Is it a drive or a street? It
needs to be a street. The plans as submitted do not meet the current City
design standards.
29. The drainage area needs to be designed as a Tract. The City will need to
sign the subdivision plat.
30. Please clarify the ownership at and around the southeast corner of this
development. This is critical to the proposed street connection to
Wallenberg Drive.
31. There is new subdivision plat language that needs to be added.
32. A portion of the east end of Hobbit Street may have to be vacated with
this development plan.
33. The private street needs to be 30' wide.
34. The sidewalks need to be 4.5' wide.
35. The parkway between the sidewalk and back of curb needs to be 6' wide.
36. A turnaround is needed at the north end of Boulder Court.
37. Boulder Court needs to be renamed because of a name conflict with an
existing street in Fort Collins.
38. The layout and engineering for this project should be coordinated with
the proposed Spring Creek Village project.
Transportation Planning (Kathleen Reavis)
39. A more substantial bicycle/pedestrian bridge than currently exists over
the Canal Importation Ditch is needed.
40. The bicycle/pedestrian trails north to West Prospect Road and to
Wallenberg Drive need to be 8' wide.
Stormwater (Basil Hamdan)
41. The utility plans do not show off -site flows onto this site from the
properties to the northeast and the northwest.
42. The utility plans do not show how drainage from the southwest portion of
this site will get to the Canal Importation Ditch.
43. The 6 condos/townhomes at the southwest corner of this property may
have to be a later phase of development or they may not be able to be
built at all.
This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be
forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing
agencies.
Under the development review process and schedule there is a 90 day plan
revision submittal time -frame mandated by the City. The 90 day
turnaround period begins on the date of the comment letter prepared by
the project plallner in the Current Planning Department. Upon receipt, the
revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside
reviewing agencies, with their comments due no later than the third weekly
staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At
this staff review meeting it will be determined if the project is ready to go to the
Administrative Hearing Officer (or Planning and Zoning Board, if necessary) for
a decision and, if so, will be scheduled for the nearest open date.
Please return all red -lined plans and reports with your revisions when they are
submitted to the Current Planning Department. The number of copies of
revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached Revisions
Routing Sheet.
As previously determined after the initial round of review for this project,
another neighborhood meeting must be held for this project prior to going to a
public hearing for a decision. The neighborhood meeting should be held as
soon as possible, especially since neighbors are aware of the recent resubmittal
of the development plan and are already asking if and when a meeting will be
held. Please contact me to schedule the neighborhood meeting and/or a
meeting to discuss these comments. I can be reached at 221-6341.
Si cerely,
teve OltDa
,
Project Planner
cc: Zoning
Engineering
Stormwater
Water & Wastewater
Transportation Planning
Natural Resources
Advance Planning
Grace-Cynkar LLP
TST Engineers
Hattman Associates
Project File #24-98
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: September 18, 2001 TO: Technical Services
PROJECT: #24-98 Prospect Creek (Young's Pasture), PDP,
Type I (LUC)
All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning
no later than the staff review meeting:
October 10, 2001
❑ No Comment VS
ElProblems or Concerns (see below or attached)
**PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE
REFERENCE**
1. 6ounlDA,�'S" �`' [.Eca/�L CGc56.
TNe
5 (G 2 r,, /D i 1) A /,k/ /i >�F
�bc5 % 2/4QT
/ 7T r s Col.;
UMCK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RI
_ Plat _ Site
Utility Redline Utility
aF j NC
SEP 1
Z001
C tZu s S T/I c— 96 C�' D� STc"rY
_ Drainage Report _ Other
Landscape
7
b) You must maintain at least 10' of clearance from the sewer/water lines.
c) When the project is further along, a utility coordination meeting is
recommended.
Please contact Bruce Vogel at 221-6700 if you have questions about
these comments.
4. The Engineering Department offered the following comments:
a) The street oversizing fee is $554/multi-family dwelling unit. These fees
are subject to change and may possibly be based on trip generation.
Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 for an estimate of fees.
b) The cul-de-sac at the end of Hobbit seems to meet the existing
standards, but parking is not allowed within the cul-de-sac. There may
be a. private drive/cul-de-sac with parking, but another public cul-de-
sac must be provided.
c) It may be possible to vacate Hobbit back to the connecting street from
the proposed Spring Creek Village.
d) You are required to dedicated adequate right-of-way on Hobbit and
Prospect.
e) Utility plans and a development agreement will be required.
Please contact Mike Dean at 221-6750 if you have questions about these
comments.
5. The Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments:
a) Three (3) building appear to be out of access. Measuring from
Shields, anything beyond 660' is required to be sprinklered without
access from the cul-de-sac.
b) You will be required to install a fire hydrant within 300' of the most
northern building along an accessible route.
Please contact Roger Frasco at 221-6570 if you have questions about
these comments.
6. The Building Inspections Department offered the following comments:
a) A copy was handed out at conceptual review of the local amendments
to the UBC pertaining to sprinklered buildings.
b) You will be required to meet the unit mix ordinance. Please note that
some garages may be subject to this as well.
c) You are required to comply with the Energy Conservation Code.
Please contact Sharon Getz at 221-6760 if you have questions about
these comments.
L�Mlbmwa 18) Project Comments Sheet
Selected Departments
, iL6of rtCOolliIZ
1 O b
Department: Engineering
Date: October 17, 2001
Project: PROSPECT CREEK (YOUNGS PASTURE) #24-98
All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the
staff review meeting:
October 10, 2001
Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference
Issue Contact: Susan Joy
21
Provide a Soils Report.
22
Provide a Traffic Impact Study.
23
Complete and submit the Checklist in Appendix E-4.
24
Coordinate various sheets so that they present the same information.
25
Plat: Update the language in several areas. See attached.
26
Plat: Provide sight distance triangles and easements. Show on all plan and profile
sheets. Sight distance easements must be dedicated on the plat.
27
Plat: Ngte 4:
this mean to the plat? Are you dedicating the encroachment?
0 ri/
Dad
CHEC 1fEAE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat _ Site Drainage Report Other_
�2 Utility _�� Redline Utility ✓ Landscape
Page I
m
Plat: Provide a Tract Table or notes, page 2.
we
Plat: Will need a Pedestrian/Bike Easement to connect to Spring Creek Trail. Show on
Plat, Landscape, Site, and Utility Plans.
30
Plat: Where is the 20' Emergency Fire Access Easement shown on the Utility Plans?
31
Plat: Label Hobbit Street and Hobbit Court.
32
Plat: Note the following:
SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENT RESTRICTIONS:
Sight Distance Easement - The sight distance easement is an easement required by the
City at some street intersections where it is necessary to protect the line of sight for a
motorist needing to see approaching traffic and to react safely for merging their vehicle
into the traffic flow. The following are requirements for certain objects that may occupy
a sight distance easement for level grade:
(1) Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches in height
with the following exceptions:
(a) Fences up to 42 inches in height may be allowed as long as they do not obstruct the
line of sight for motorists.
(b) Deciduous trees may be allowed as long as all branches of the trees are trimmed so
that no portion thereof or leaves thereon hang lower than six (6) feet above the ground,
and the trees are spaced such that they do not obstruct line of sight for motorists.
Deciduous trees with trunks large enough to obstruct line of sight for motorists shall be
removed by the owner.
For non -level areas these requirements shall be modified to provide the same degree of
visibility.
33
Cover Sheet: Provide the legal description below the project name.
Page 2
34
Cover Sheet: Add the current date (month and year) under the legal description.
35
Cover Sheet: Minimum size for the Vicinity Map is 10" x 10" and to a scale of V=1000-
1500'. See LCUASS, 3.3.1.C.1&2
36
Cover Sheet: Correct the Index and renumber your sheets. See redlines.
37
Cover Sheet: Correct your title block to include TST's fax number.
W-j
Cover Sheet: Update the General Notes. See Appendix E1. Complete lines 19 and 40.
39
Cover Sheet: Add the Construction Notes as applicable. See Appendix E2.
40
Cover Sheet: Provide the statement: "I hereby affirm...". See E4, I, J.
41
Cover Sheet: Provide typical street sections(s) for each street type being proposed.
Sections include appropriate horizontal and vertical dimensions and cross slopes.
W
Cover Sheet: Add the Indemnification Statement: "These plans have been reviewed b
the Local Entity for...". See LCUASS 3.3.1.F.
a,
Cover Sheet: Provide a 4"x6" area on each sheet for the local entity's stamp of
approval.
M,
Cover Sheet: Update the signature block, all sheets. See attached.
Pa,,e 3
45
Grading Sheet: Provide a Drainage Report.
MET
Grading Sheet: Update the Erosion Control Notes per Appendix E2.
47
Grading Sheet: Change "Private Alley" to read "Private Drive".
48
Grading Sheet: Provide a detail for your retaining walls. Are the footings inside your
property line? Will you need a temporary construction easement or will you be able to
construct it within your property's boundaries?
49
Grading Sheet: Expand your Legend to include Property lines, Easements, Tracts,
Building Envelopes, Buffer Zones, etc, all sheets.
Grading Sheet: Show Tracts and label, all sheets.
51
Grading Sheet: Line weights too light. Cannot read existing contours. Please provide
at 2' min intervals and label.
52
Grading Sheet: Contours must extend a minimum of 50' offsite and tie into existing
contours.
53
Grading Sheet: Provide the statement shown in Appendix E4, II, E.
54
Grading Sheet: Drainage arrows are provided BUT the rest of the design is too light to
read and I can't tell where the drainage is going. Please show positive drainage to
streets or to an approved drainage facility.
Pale 4
55
Grading Sheet: Please show phasing if applicable.
3M
Grading Sheet: Per 9.4.11 no more than 500 sf of sheet flow from a driveway can go
across the sidewalk. You will need to adjust the grades of many of the driveways so
that the 500 sf threshold is not exceeded.
57
Grading Sheet: Page 2, Provide the culvert design on Hobbit Drive.
41
Grading Sheet: Change Hobbit Court to Hobbit Street. Hobbit Street can become
Hobbit Court where it changes directions at the 90 degree turn.
6M
Utility Plan: Show where the existing pavement ends on Hobbit and how your street will
tie into it. Show limits of construction.
M
Utility Plan: You show a fire hydrant behind Lots 3 and 4 and no way for the fire truck to
reach it. What's it there for? Other sheets show it right on top of your concrete pan.
61
Utility Plan: The culdesac does not match the site plan.
62
Utility Plan: Show existing fence as indicated on Plat and indicate what will be done
with it. Is it going to be removed, relocated?
63
Utility Plan: Line weights are too light to read or too similar to each other to easily read.
It's very hard to distinguish what is what. Please work on this and show all ROW,
property lines, building envelopes, buffer zones, easements, etc, properly labeled and
dimensioned on every sheet including the site plan and landscape plan.
64
Utility Plan: Show all driveway curb cuts and stationing for each one.
Page 5
65
Utility Plan: Show general location of signs.
66
Utility Plan: Show existing features for a minimum of 150' beyond the project limits.
67
Utility Plan: Proposed utility connections with existing utility connections are too light to
read.
Utility Plan: Show, all sight distance triangles and easements on all plan & profile
sheets. Label.
.•
Utility Plan: Incorporate comments from the Site Plan.
70
Sanitary Sewer Plan & Profile: See redlines for conflicting information.
72
Street Plan & Profile: Provide cross sections, 50' intervals. See 3.3.4.C.
73
Street Plan & Profile: Dimension existing Hobbit Street width.
74
Street Plan & Profile: Need to identify beginning and end of street taper. Identify if
taper is "both sides" or only one side.
75
Street Plan & Profile: Add street cut note: Limits of street cut are approximate. Final
limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to
be in accordance with City street repair standards.
W.
Street Plan & Profile: Mail kiosk also shown to have a trash pickup area but not marked
as such on this sheet. See site plan comments.
Page 6
77
Street Plan & Profile: Provide high point for the culdesac and locate.
m
Street Plan & Profile: This is the right street section but you didn't design it this way.
Please incorporate these requirements into your design.
79
Street Plan & Profile: Show existing grades on the flowlines and centerline and tie
proposed into it.
X
Street Plan & Profile: Station the inlet.
IN
Street Plan & Profile: Maximum grade break exceeded at the point where the right and
left flowlines tie into each other.
p►
Street Plan & Profile: Elevations at the end of the right and left flowlines do not match.
Street Plan & Profile: All vertical curves and sags must be in accordance with 7-17 and
7-18. Minimum lengths have not been met.
EM
Street Plan & Profile: Incorporate comments from Site Plan and see redlines for further
comments.
85
Street Plan & Profile: Provide the design for the emergency access road.
86
Detail Sheet: Update all details to current LCUASS. Provide 7-14, 7-29A, 9-01,16-1,16-
2, 16-4A and any other applicable detail.
Page 7
87
Detail Sheet: Don't include the FCLWD stamp block if they do not need to sign off.
88
Detail Sheet: Add street cut note to "Replacing Asphalt Paving detail". Update the
detail to current LCUASS.
89
Detail Sheet: Concrete sidewalk culvert detail - where is this going? Please reference
sheet or remove if your not using this.
90
Detail Sheet: Last; sheet - Rename to match the title on the cover sheet.
91
Site Plan: Prospect Road Tie in for the emergency road not shown on Sheet 8 as
noted. Please provide. Code requires it to be perpendicular to Prospect with a max 8%
grade. Please provide the design and the access easement for this.
92
Site Plan: "No Parking - Fire Lane" sign required and curb must be painted red.
93
Site Plan: 13' min Handicapped parking width and HC sign required.
94 /
Site Plan: Parking depth must be,;�3'. (C�
95
Site Plan: Please dimension all parking spaces.
96
Site Plan: Combined Ped and Bike path required from Prospect to Hobbit Court.
Provide access ramps and current details. 8' walk + 12' easement OR 10' + 10'
easement required.
Page 8
97
Site Plan: Show all property lines, easements, building envelopes, buffer zones, ROW,
etc-, properly labeled. Include a legend. Lots of lines everywhere and no labeling.
98
Site Plan: Private drives are 20' wide minimum. The car from Unit D3 doesn't have
enough room to turn around and will have to back out quite a way. Might want to
reconfigure this.
99
Site Plan: What are the little black projections from the buildings? See redlines. Are
these within the building envelope?
100
Site Plan: Do not use the high volume drive entrance to the Private Drive. Use detail 7-
29A.
101
Site Plan: Detach the sidewalk and design the street to current code. See the Local
Street Section shown on Sheet 9 of the Utility Plans and design the project to these
requirements.
102
Site Plan: See the Culdesac detail 7-24A for the standard. What you currently show
does not meet the requirements or match the Utility and Landscape Plans.
103
Site Plan: 12' minimum distance required between driveways.
104
Site Plan: Driveway widths are 12' min and 24' max (30' max for 3 car garages). Many
driveways out of compliance.
105
Site Plan: Garages must be set back 20' - most of the buildings are out of compliance.
106
Site Plan: Garages exceed the maximum of 50% facing the street.
Page 9
107
Site Plan: Show existing fence as noted on the Plat. Note what will be done with it -
remove, relocate?
W
Site Plan: Provide a connection to Spring Creek Trail with all necessary easements.
Show neighboring easements as indicated on the plat.
109
Site Plan: Building footings shown in the natural resources buffer zone - no construction
or improvements allowed in this area.
110
Site Plan: Building D requires a 15' setback instead of the 7' shown. Garages always
require a 20' setback.
111
Site Plan: The pullout at the Trash and Mail area is not acceptable and not to code.
Shouldn't the trash be picked up at each home and the mailbox(s) a little more centrally
located?
112
Site Plan: Hobbit Street is Hobbit Street until the 90 degree turn. Then it may change
names to Hobbit Court.
113
Site Plan: Show existing features for a minimum of 150' of the project limits.
114
Site Plan: Show sight distance easements.
115
Site Plan: See buildings B, C, D - How will the utilities fit? 10' separation required
between electric and water and there doesn't appear to be enough room to get
everything in there.
116
Landscape Plan: Provide a Legend.
Page 10
7. The Transportation Department offered the following comments:
a) A Transportation Impact Study is required. Please contact Eric Bracke
to schedule a scoping meeting.
b) Please provide bicycle and pedestrian connections to Prospect and
provide areas for bicycle parking.
c) Transfort service currently existing on Shields and westbound only on
Prospect. We would like a stop located to the west of Sheely, perhaps
on this property.
8. The Park Planning Division stated that parks fees (neighborhood and
community) will be due for each unit.
9. Written comments from the Natural Resources Department were provided
at conceptual review.
10. The Current Planning Department offered the following comments:
a) Buildings exceeding 40' in height must comply with the special height
review standards from Article 3 of the Land Use Code.
b) You must comply with the applicable standards of the Land Use Code.
Please refer to the district standards for the MMN zone district located
in Article 4 and the General Development Standards in Article 3 of the
Land Use Code.
c) A neighborhood meeting will be required. Please contact me to
schedule the meeting when you are ready to proceed. A copy of the
Area of Notification Map is attached.
d) Under the new Land Use Code (in effect March 28) you will have to
submit a project development plan. The project development plan will
generally specify the uses of land, the layout of landscaping,
circulation, architectural elevations, and building and preliminary plat.
The PDP is more specific than the Preliminary submittals for the
LDGS. You may choose to submit the PDP concurrently with the Final
Plan as well. As you are combining to separate lots with this proposal,
you will need to meets the requirements for PDP with Subdivision.
The submittal requirements are attached.
Please contact Leanne Harter at 221-6750 if you have questions about
these comments.
117
Landscape Plan: Fire Hydrant in proposed crosspan. How will the fire truck access this
hydrant?
118
Landscape Plan: Lineweights too light, hard to read or review. More comments to
follow on resubmittal.
119
Landscape Plan: Incorporate comments from the site and utility plans.
120
Landscape Plan: 13.5' min vertical clearance over the fire lane. Trees are shown
completely covering it and will not meet the clearance requirements when they start to
grow in.
121
Landscape Plan: See redlines.
122
Technical Services Comment: Boundary and Legal close.
123
Technical Services Comment: N 1/4 corners of section 23 incorrectly described.
124
Technical Services Comment: The two areas of the 90' wide storm drainage, east and
west of tract B need a tract designation. Does Tract B cross the 90' wide storm drain?
It is confusing.
Page 11
Sear -Brown Engineering Response to Comments
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW RESPONSES
Young's Creek PDP — TYPE I LUC
The following responses from the engineering design consultant, Sear -Brown to city staff to the Staff
Project Review dated October 11, 2002 are provided. The order of responses follows the original staff
document.
ISSUES:
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: General
10
1. Please re -submit the variance requests in conformance with Section 1.9.2 of the LCUASS. Please include a
variance request for a cul-de-sac exceeding 660', a variance for the attached sidewalk versus the detached walk,
and the variance for the driveway separation distance to.,./the,,r'�tersection -.two driveways do not meet th
minimum separation requirements. oo6v' uu V'AA-1 L0Ce_ � S
o-
2. The 9' utility easement is measured off the back of walk. IThe plans are showing the sidewalk ovJr1apping the
utility easement. A variance request will need to be submitted and routed for the utilities approval for this
overlap. i7O7J -u'u_ 1- , Zve—w/I "gAcf%JYI
3. Unit CI and the garage are shown approximately 7' off the back of walk, which is currently proposed as 4.5'
wide. The minimum width the city will accept for an attached walk is 6'. This will put the building 5.5' from
back of walk.
Response: Please see revised variance request and site plan revisions.
11
The cul-de-sac is designed 6" short of the old standard. The cul-de-sac must be designed to the current standard,
which requires a minimum turning radius of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside.
Response: Per discussions with staff, a 40 foot radius is sufficient, and the plans now reflect that as the radius
from center to flowline.
Topic: Plat
65
From Technical Services: Criteria from Urban Area Street Standards Appendix E-6 have not been met.
Response: This is not a rnvlar submittal. When mvlars are submitted, the criteria will be met.
Topic: Utility
12
See section 7.4.1 for design requirements of the local street. Section 7.4.1.A.8 for off -site design requirements
for a local street.
Response. Per discussions with staff, street design now depicts acceptable design criteria, provided the
variance requests are approved as discussed.
13
See section 3.2.10, 3.2.11, 3.2.12, 3.3.4, etc, for information that must be shown on the plans. The plan set as
submitted is very difficult to read because all line weights shown are ghosted, proposed and existing alike.
Please resubmit the plans clearly distinguishing the existing features for a min of 150' from the project
boundaries in a ghosted line weight and use a darker line weight for all proposed improvements. Show all
easements, row, building; envelopes, buffers, etc.
Page I
Response. Per discussions with staff, construction plans now depict additional off -site information from City
mapping data for elevation contours and existing structures. Plan presentation has been revised t clarify
information for review and for construction. C
�Lf
Update the General Notes to the current 48 and fill in the blanks where applicabldll
Response: Notes have been updated.
22
Provide the full design including centerline profile and all radii of the sidewalk coming off Prospect. Provide
dimensions, widths, location, grade, etc, so that we can verify that it is ADA compliant.
Response. Per discussions with staff, construction tans now depict additional information on the grading plan,
which shows compliance with ADA criteria. � dtQ -61),
Z4�L6rX/1_6
Show existing features for a minimum of 150' from the project limits.
Response: Per discussions with staff, construction plans now depict additional off -site information from City
mapping data for elevation contours and existing structures. Plan presentation has been revised to clari
information for review and for construction.
32
Need to identify beginning and end of taper. Identi (label) if taper is "both sides" or one side only.
Response: Done. �G�; L C
33
Replace detail 7-31 with 7D-10 attached. Remove detail 7-20C if not n eded.
Response: Done. �( C Lr)'l.Zi Q,Q-- At-ettEe (,,I
Show the design for Hobbit all the way out to South Shields Street so that the variance requests can be properly
submitted and analyzed.
Response. Per discussions with staff, construction plans now depict additional off -site information. Staff
agreed to accept additional off site information to existing street cross pan rather than all the way to Shields
Street.
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Drainage Report:
1. Please see minor wording changes in the drainage report.
Response: Done.
Topic: Drainage
80
Please add TOW and BOW elevations for the retaining walls.
Response. Landscape features will be installed to accommodate the intent of the grading design, but will likely
not have 'hard' edges at which to measure exact elevations.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Topic: Transportation
73
The sidewalk along the parcel's West Prospect Road frontage is sub -standard. Please construct a 7 foot attached
sidewalk along the Prospect Road frontage in lieu of building the sidewalk to the LCUASS.
Response: Per discussion with staff, and following site visit, engineering staff recognizes current condition of
walk as sufficient.
Page 2
74
Please provide written justification as to why the sidewalk is attached along the outer curve of Hobbit Street and
Grace Court.
Response: A detached .siden�allc in this location roa,otdd not bepractical, given the numerous site reetrictions.
Gncn that this condition onh, exists for a relativchshort distance along the pedestrian pathsvav, no significant
impediment to pedestrian travel i.s presoved le this r ariance from standards_ Plcasc see variance request
letter ac( ompam'ing dri.,submittal.
1)eparnnca, N%Cites 11amonater Issue Contact: .1eff[Jill
Topic: General
_53
Rea Iifn the proposed sanitary sewer and water main at the intersection ofItobbit and Grace Corot in order to
avoid multiple manholes and water main fittings.
Rcs'ponsc: Done,
54
Sincc the original submittal of Young's Pasture, the policy on serving carriage houses (i.e. living units above
garages) has changed. l'hese units may he served by extending water and sewer from the single family
residence. Therefore, eliminate rear yard water and sewer mains. Combine water and sewer services for
carriage house and single family house on the same service.
Response: Dom,
_55
Provide 10 lest minimum separation between water main and proposed carport. 11' this involves moving the
water main, the sewer must also shift to maintain the 10 feet between water and sewer. If the sewer moves
west, other utilities will be affected.
Response: Dare.
56
Remove existing contours and ghost proposed contours on the overall utility plans for clarity.
Response: Because a is important for contractors to know how the existing topography is described, rove have
kept ill(' Bri.vling contours in the plans. We have made revisions to the plan prescntation to improve clarity.
57
Provide all existing and proposed inverts for sanitary sewer lines which connect into manholes. See site,
landscape and utility plans for other comments.
Response: Donc.
Page 3
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: April[ 11, 2003 TO: Technical Services
PROJECT: #24-98A YOUNG'S CREEK PDP — TYPE I (LUC)
S5
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
May 7, 2003
No Comment
❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
**PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE
REFERENCE**
aou.✓C'eQY# LEGfiI
ecasE.
Z
w fl LA Ll
hpU-0—
C�CceSS
b1U cicG"_� E.k W /lei, bU,C1,
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS ate
_Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other
_Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape
Project Comments Sheet
Cit�FortCollins
Selected Departments
t:
Date: May 8, 2003
Project: YOUNGS CREEK EDP - TYPE I (yC)
All comments must be received by Steve Olt in CurFent Planning, no later than the
staff review meeting:
May 07, 2003
Note_P/ease identify your redlines for future reference
Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: Bridge Design
Number: 97 Created: 5/6/2003
Please provide the structural talcs for the bridge design.
Number: 98 Created: 5/6/2003
Please see the attached for additional required notes that are circled in red.
Number: 99 Created: Please provide the elevations at each end of the culvert. See redlines, s5/6/2003
heet ted: ted: details i and 2.
Number: 100 Created: 5/6/2003
Detail 2 - Is there a minimum or maximum height requirement on the backfll? If so, please label and coordinate with
the grading sheets.
Number: 111 Created: 5/6/2003
All structures (bridge) must be a minimum of 2' below scarified subgrade. See redlines.
Topic: General
Number: 89 Created: 5/6/2003
See detail 1603 for all midblock pedestrian access ramp requirements.
Number: 128 Created: 5/8/2003
Coordinate the various plan sets so that they present the same information.
Number: 129 Created: 5/8/2003
See redlines for additional comments.
Topic: Grading Plan
Number: 10 Created: 5/6/2003
Sig t f
� Date
CHECK HEkg IF�rIU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS /
_ Plat _� Site Drainage Report Other ti`T
_ Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape
Page I
Proposed contours need to tie into existing.
Number: 104 Created: 5/6/2003
Spot elevations required for all lot corners.
Number: 118 Created: 5/8/2003
The labeling is overlapped, too small and too crowded to make the grading sheets possible to review. I can't read a lot
of the spot elevations or contours as they are currently shown. See appendix E6 for scanability requirements.
Number: 119 Created: 5/8/2003
Remove the duplicate Grading and Erosion control notes on pg CS200 and CS201. This information is already given
on sheet CS001. Use the additional space to enlarge the drawing so that it's LEGIBLE.
Topic: Landscape
Number: 35 Created: 10/7/2002
Show all utility easements, buffers, building envelopes, etc.
5/6/3: Please show and LABEL all of the above. Lots of lines shown but no legend or labeling makes it hard to tell
what's what.
Number: 96
See detail 16-1 for sidewalk setback requirements.
Topic: Plat
Created: 5/6/2003
Number: 27 Created: 10/7/2002
Add the City of Fort Collins as an owner since you are showing the city as the owner of the 20' storm drainage. You will
need to correct note #5 on the cover sheet. See redlines.
5/6/3: City signature added, however, corrections to note #5 are still required. Access Easements must read as Public
Access Easements. See redlines.
Number: 62 Created: 10/9/2002
Correct the plat language. see attached and see redlines.
5/6/3: Repeat comment. Corrections were not made as requested. See attached Plat Language document and
redlines.
Number: 66 Created: 10/9/2002
From Technical Services: Grace Ct can be a continuation of Hobbit.
Confirmation from Poudre Fire Authority: They require the entire street to be named "Hobbit Street"
5/6/3: Repeat comment. Change Grace Ct to be a continuation of Hobbit Street.
IT repeat for clarity - this portion of the street can NOT be named Grace Ct. It MUST be a continuation of Hobbit Street.
This requirement was communicated to Sear Brown and the property owner verbally the day after the comment letter
went out and should have been changed with this submittal.
Number: 88 Created: 5/6/2003
The project title should read "Young's Creek, POP"
Topic: Site
Number: 39 Created: 10/7/2002
Show the retaining wall.
5/6/3: Repeat comment
Page 2
PV
Number: 90 Created: 5/6/2003
Label all Tracts and easements.
Number: 91 Created: 5/6/2003
Dimension all sidewalks.
Number: 92 Created: 5/6/2003
The transition from detached to attached sidewalks will make the landscaping more difficult to maintain as currently
shown. Please fill in the area as shown on the redlines.
Number: 93 Created: 5/6/2003
Relabel the "Fire Easement" to read "Emergency Access Easement"
Number: 94 Created: 5/6/2003
The sidewalk connection to the Spring Creek Trail must be 8' (not the 6' currently shown) and the offsite portion must
be designed and constructed with this project.
Number: 95 Created: 5/6/2003
Correct the 15' Setback label along Prospect to read "15' Utility Easement"
Topic: Street Design
Number: 32 Created: 10/7/2002
Need to identify beginning and end of taper. Identify (label) if taper is "both sides" or one side only.
5/6/3: Beginning and end of taper identified. Still need to label if taper is "both sides" or "one side only".
Number: 106 Created: 5/6/2003
Show (hatch) approximate area of construction for the street cut. See redlines.
Number: 107 Created: 5/6/2003
Remove the contour lines on the street plan and profile sheets. Again, too much overlapping to effectively review this
design.
Number: 108 Created: 5/6/2003
Curve Table - Repeat comment from the previous reclined utility sheet. The radiusi for C10 (was previously shown as
C9) must be 26' per detail 7-26. Still shown as 24'.
Number: 122 Created: 5/8/2003
All utilities must be a minimum of 2' below scarified subgrade. See redlines
Number: 124
Provide curb return profiles.
Created: 5/8/2003
Number: 125 Created: 5/8/2003
Provide an exhibit with cross sections through the cuts shown on the redlines so that I can verify that the street's cross
slope requirements are being met. This does not need to be "fancy" or "official", just 8.5x11 sheets of paper with the
next submittal is fine.
Number: 126
Provide the missing grades on the profiles.
Created: 5/8/2003
Number: 127 Created: 5/8/2003
The minimum vertical curve requirements are not being met on all vertical curves.
Topic: Utility
Number: 13
Created: 10/4/2002
Page 3
See section 3.2.10, 3.2.1' 1, 3.2.12, 3.3.4, etc, for information that must be shown on the plans. The plan set as
submitted is very difficult to read because all line weights shown are ghosted, proposed and existing alike. Cannot tell
the where the proposed improvements are in relationship to the ROW and easements. Please resubmit the plans
clearly distinguishing the existing features for a min of 150' from the project boundaries in a ghosted line weight and use
a darker line weight for all proposed improvements. Show all easements, row, building envelopes, buffers, etc. Read
chapter 3 of LCUASS. See comment #12. This review is cursory in nature only. A more detailed review will be given
when more details can be seen.
5/1 Repeat comment. The overall legibility of the plans is very poor. Labeling is overlapped, upside down, and
crowded. The ROW is not correctly shown along Prospect. No utility easements are shown. Buffers aren't shown
completely or labeled. Please be advised that we will not sign off on the plans until the plans meet our standards. In
addition to the sections mentioned above, please see Appendix E6 for criteria on scanable quality mylars.
Number: 16 Created: 10/7/2002
Correct the title and legal description, see redlines.
5/6/3: Repeat comment. Not done as stated in the response letter.
Number: 20 Created: 10/7/2002
Complete line A14 of the General Construction Notes.
5/6/3: Repeat comment. Not done as stated in the response letter. Please contact Bob Zakley at 221-6063 for the
notes.
Number: 21 Created: 10/7/2002
The retaining wall details must be in an engineering scale, not architectural. The footings appear to touch the property
line and the excavation to put those footings in will need another foot or two. How will you be able to construct this all
without going onto the neighboring property? Please provide a temporary construction easement.
5/6/3: Details are now in engineering scale, however, the retaining walls are not clearly shown on the utility plans and
appear to still require a temporary construction easement to install them. The response letter stated "refer to
Landscape Drawing', however, the landscape plans only show on on -site retaining wall and no retaining wall along the
western property line. Regardless of whether or not the landscape plans properly show the retaining wall, the Utility
Plans must show the retaining wall.
Number: 22 Created: 10/7/2002
Provide the full design including centerline profile and all radii of the sidewalk coming off Prospect. Provide
dimenstions, widths, location, grade, etc, so that we can verify that it is ADA compliant.
5/6/3: Per the discussion between City staff and Sear Brown, the plans must show enough information to lay this out in
the field. Currently, only a, note stating the grade is shown on the plans. Please provide dimensions, widths, radii, and
locations as previously required and verbalized in the last meeting.
Number: 23 Created: 10/7/2002
CS201 has the sidewalk connection to Spring Creek trail labeled as 5'. Should be 8'.
5/6/3: Repeat comment. Please design and show the sidewalk as 8'. The plans currently show no dimensioning
whatsoever.
Number: 25 Created: 10/7/2002
Half the labeling is oriented for the reader and the other half is oriented sideways, or in some cases upside down.
Please rotate the labeling so that you can read it.
5/6/3: Repeat comment. The plans will not be approved or signed off until you meet our requirements.
Number: 33 Created: 10/7/2002
Replace detail 7-31 with D 10 attached. Remove detail 7-20C if not needed.
5/6/3: Repeat comment, not "done" as stated in the response letter.
Number: 59
Created: 10/9/2002
Page 4
Dedicate 21' of additional ROW from Prospect (102' of ROW total for the constrained arterial) plus a 15' utility
easement. Design and construct a 7' attached sidewalk along Prospect.
5/6/3: Per subsequent discussions, the existing sidewalk along Prospect will remain. The additional 21' of ROW and
15' utility easement still needs to be dedicated. Currently the plat shows it but the utility plans do not.
Number: 101 Created: 5/6/2003
Complete and submit Appendix E4 (see attached) with the next submittal. Any items not incoporated into this design
will become a new comment/open item in the next round.
Number: 109 Created: 5/6/2003
Remove the contour lines from the Overall Utility Plan sheet for legibility.
Number: 110
Dimension all sidewalks..
Created: 5/6/2003
Number: 114 Created: 5/8/2003
Cover Sheet/General Notes/Note 12: List each variance request by the section number and a brief description of the
code requirement followed by a brief decscription of what the variance was granted for.
Number: 115 Created: 5/8/2003
Correct the index as shown on the redlines. It is unnecessary to duplicate the page numbering system.
Number: 120 Created: 5/8/2003
Legend - Provide additional line weights for the proposed ROW and utility easements and show on plans, all sheets.
Number: 123 Created: 5/8/2003
Cover Sheet - Provide an additional typical street section for the portion of the street with the attached sidewalk. Label
each street section with "Hobbit Street from Station _ to Station _" (fill in the blank with appropriate stationing).
Topic: Variance Requests
Number: 10 Created: 10/4/2002
Resubmit the variance requests in conformance with section 1.9.4 of the LCUASS. Please include a variance request
for a culdesac exceeding 660', a variance for the attached sidewalk versus the detached walk and the variance for the
driveway separation distance to the intersection - two driveways do not meet the minimum separation requirements.
Also, whenever an attached sidewalk is proposed, the minimum sidewalk width on a local street the City will consider is
6'.
The 9' utility easement is measured off the back of walk. The plans are showing the sidewalk overlapping the utility
easement. A variance request will need to be submitted and routed for the utilities approval for this overlap. A utility
coordination meeting is strongly recommended prior to the next submittal. How will all the utilities fit?
Unit Cl and the garage are shown approximately 7' off the back of walk, which is currently proposed as 4.5' wide. The
minimum width the city will accept for an attached walk is 6'. This will put the building 4.5' from back of walk. Is this
acceptable?
51613: Repeat comments. None of the variance requests were submitted as requested. Please submit all variance
requests in accordance with 1.9.4.
Page 5
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: June 3, 1998 TO: Engineering Pavement
PROJECT: #24-98 Prospect Creek (Youngs Pasture) - Type I
(LUC) PDP
All comments must be received by Leanne Harter no later than the staff
review meeting;:
Wednesday, July 1,1998
A pavement design and final soils report will need to be submitted even if the streets are
private. The swell/consolidation test will need to be redone at a 100 pfs as per our standard,
not at 500 psf as it was tested..
Date:
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Pit _ Site _ DcazW Report _ Oler
_ Utility _ Redline Ufik _ lands*
City of Fort Collins
Current
DATE: June 3, 1998
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
DEPT: Engineering
PROJECT: #24-98 Prospect Creek (Youngs Pasture) - Type I (LUC) PDP
PLANNER: Leanne Harter
ENGINEER: Michael K. Dean, P.E.
All comments must be received by: 711198
Correct the Title to Read " Utility Plans for Prospect Creek Subdivision".
Provide a Vicinity Map that is legible.
Provide two Bench :Marks from the Black Bolt Survey.
Plat shows street dedicated as R.O.W. when Utility Plans show them as Private Drives, which is
it?
Use the new Attorney's Certification Language on the Plat.
Access to Prospect is not designed according to City Standards.
Show design for crossing structure proposed for the Canal Importation Channel.
*** see redlines for additional comments***
Date: T„ ,29 Signature:
CPECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
✓_Plat Site ✓Drainage Report Other
,/Utility ,Aedline Utility landscape
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: June 3, 1998 TO: Mapping/Drafting
PROJECT: #24-98 Prospect Creek (Youngs Pasture) - Type I
(LUC) PDP
All comments must be received by Leanne Harter no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, July 1,1998
1. 66i11 S+V"i- nwwtes asp.. ftai " "Sect — CYeeIC//Sle�e C+.
1$ 4 J4 P I;cc%4- o N d �YOS�c'�' may, W 1 1, be- Go k} is e J
w pYespec+ Rd.
•�Z•
wtiai- and
wWo
r"Ctl�4g';fr ik
i)'gC.W
•3.
Arc ease rw#ft4
"eeJ ed
alat,
tL
Ti ;s P lc-?
q. -n,&- CJ-1
Date:
g Fe l•l*C Y
oT
540414 Eft pgs,+ a� ran pba. - i�o
CRCK IRE IF YOU WISHTO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
_ Plat _ Site— Drainage Report _ Oler
— UWity — Redline Utility — Iandsape
Commun; Planning and Environmental S ices
Currant Planning
Citv of Fort Collins
July 8, 1998
Brad Saucerman
Jim Sell Design
153 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Dear Brad:
City staff has reviewed Prospect Creek (Young's Pasture) Project
Development Plan, #24-98, and offers the following comments:
1. The Zoning Department offered the following:
a) Please note the trash enclosure and bicycle rack locations.
b) Please show the building envelope, dimensions and distance to
property lines for the patio homes.
c) How wide is the easement along Creekside Court?
d) Are the townhomes on one lot? What is the overall square footage?
Is it Lot #9?
e) Please show ramps at all handicapped spaces.
f) Please provide street or front yard trees on the west side of Prospect
Drive in front of Lots 1 through 8 to break up the driveways.
g) There should be a plat note describing what Tracts A through G are.
2. Comments from Building Inspections are attached.
3. The Light and Power Utility stated that "There is no space to install services
for townhomies or for patio homes. All proposed electric and gas meter
locations need to be shown."
?PSI Noah CAIego Aa onuc • PO_ Box 580 • Fort CoIIin,, CO 50522-0580 • (970) 221-o750 • FAX (970) 476 -2020
4. Comments from the Engineering Department are attached.
5. Comments for the Stormwater Utility are attached.
6. Comments from the Water/Wastewater Utility are attached.
7. The Post Office offered the following comments:
a) Please make alternate selections for both Creekside Court and
Prospect Drive. Creekside Court is already in use in Fort Collins and
Prospect Drive will have the same range of number as Prospect Lane
in the same zip code.
8. The Police (Department requested that Creekside Court be renamed as it
already is in existence.
9. TCI of Fort Collins offered the following comments:
a) TCI of Fort Collins would like to know what the tracts are?
b) We would also like to see them (the tracts) as utility easements.
c) TCI of Fort Collins would also like to see utility easements for lots 1
thru 8.
10. Traffic Operations offered the following comments:
a) Please modify the current "bulb" at Hobbit.
b) We will need to discuss access control (limited to right in/right out) at
Hobbit and Shields.
11. ROW Planning offered the following comments:
a) Since the City owns the Canal Importation Channel in fee, Council
approval is required to grant any interest to the developer for the
"Prospect Drive ROW" across the channel. Staff would need to make
the above recommendation.
b) If the recommendation is favorable and Council approves,
compensation for the Prospect Drive ROW would also be required.
12. Comments from the Poudre Fire Authority are attached.
13. Engineering Pavement stated that "A pavement design and final soils report
will need to be submitted even if the streets are private. The